Rajasthan Court February 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ultramed Private Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1564; 2006(3)WLC170
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and the present petition is filed through its Managing Director, Dr. Anil Sharma, for the purpose of issuance of writ order or direction to the respondents for initiating extradition proceedings against Frank Martin Ruseler and Gerrit Jan Vijfvinkel. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No, 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur issued bailable warrants against following persons: i) Mr. Frank Ruseler (International Sales and Marketing Manager of M/s. Dutch Ophthalmic Research Centre International By Oude Singe 12, 3211 B.A. Geervliet, Holland) New Address : Scheijdelveweg 2, 3214 VN Zuibland, The Netherlands).ii) G. Vijfvinkel, President, M/s. Dutch Ophthalmic Research Centre International By Oude Singe 12, 3211 B.A. Geervliet, Holland). (New Address : Scheijdelvweg 2, 3214 VN Zuibland, The Netherlands).2. The bailable warrants were issued on 22.2.95 which reads as under: 22.2.1995Application for exem...
Harkori Vs. Mangla Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC73
ORDERK.C. Sharma, J.1. Through this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant seeks to quash the award dated 17.2.1994 by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition No. 29/90.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned award and the record of the case.3. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide its award under challenge dismissed the Claim Petition No. 29/90 filed by the claimant appellant, observing that at the time of accident, Prem Singh @ Prithvi was driver of the jeep and since the accident occurred on account of his negligence, his mother is not entitled to claim any compensation.4. That sole question which requires to be adjudicated upon is as to whether deceased Prem Singh @ Prithvi was the occupant of the jeep or was the driver of the vehicle? 5. The factual matrix in brief are that on 14.11.1989 at about 4.40 p.m. Bus No. 1206 belonging to the Rajastnan State Road Transport Corporation coll...
Kunna Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1071; 2006(2)WLC288
Gopal Krishna Vyas, J.1. By the present petition moved under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek to challenge order dated 6.8.1999 whereby the learned Judl. Magistrate, Kuchaman City proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 148, 447, 427 and 379, I.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 68/99 and, so also, order dated 6.9.2005 passed by the revisional Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in law in taking cognizance of alleged offences against the petitioners in the absence of sufficient evidentiary material on record. He submitted that the case is of civil nature because the land in question was sold to the petitioners by the complainant vide an agreement to sale and the petitioners have filed suit in which stay order was granted upon the application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. in which restraining the complainant and other persons it is order...
Lehru Lal Vs. Ram Chandra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj1729; 2006(2)WLC262
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1.By filing the present miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C, the petitioner has challenged the judgment/order dated 22.3.2005 passed by the Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Gangapur in Criminal Case No. 33/2005, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed complaint before the Addl, Chief Judl. Magistrate, Gangapur against the non-petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B, I.P.C. It is contended that under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, upon the complaint the learned Magistrate was under obligation either to send the complaint for investigation while exercising power under Section 190, Cr.P.C., or, to proceed to grant opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence after examination of the complaint as provided under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the p...
Bhojoo Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj1916
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In these appellants Bhojoo Singh and Rajendra Singh @ Raju have challenged their conviction under Sections 302, 201 and 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Sikar Camp Neem-ka-Thana, in Sessions Case No. 36/2002 for which they had been sentenced as under:Under Section 302 IRC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 201 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 420/120B IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The relevant facts leading to these appeals are that on January 11, 2000 Shankar Lal Sarpanch (PW. 1) telephonically inform...
Ram Kishore Sharma Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj1910; 2006(2)WLC264
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The controversy in regard to payment of pension and other retiral benefits to the employees of the Ravindra Manch Society has already been decided by this Court initially in the case of Tej Shankar v. Govt. of Rajasthan and Anr., which had further been followed by this Court in the cases of Dayal Singh and Babu Lal Verma. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court has further been affirmed by the Division Bench as also Supreme Court. It has also been admitted by the respondents that the above persons had been granted retiral benefits as per directions of this Court.2. It is rather most unfortunate that the controversy already having been decided by this Court, no general orders have yet been passed by the Society or the State Government in regard to payment of retiral benefits to all the employees of the Society. The practice/approach and mentality of the concerning authorities in granting benefit only to the persons who get directions from this Court is...
Laxmi Lal Vs. Paras Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Raj302; 2006WLC(Raj)UC695
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,282.13p. against the defendants with the allegation that the plaintiffs are doing the business and the defendant used to purchase cotton from the plaintiffs. On Ashad Sud Dasham Samwat Year 2034 (upto 26-6-78), the accounts of the defendant were settled and the defendant admitted that the amount of Rs. 2,535/- in this account is due in him. The defendant after admitting his liability in security to that due amount, executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiffs but he did not pay the said principal amount and interest levied thereon, therefore, the plaintiffs' case is that at the time of filing the suit, the total amount of interest is Rs. 560/- along with the principal amount is Rs. 2535/- total Rs. 3042. were due in the defendant. The plaintiffs further stated that on Ashoj Bad Ekam Samwat 2034 i.e. 28-9-1979, the defendant further purchased one bag of...
Ram Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC258
K.C. Sharma, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises out of the award dated 2.4.1994 by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of claimant appellant Ram Kishore claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,51,500 on account of accident that took place on 23.10.1986 at the crossing of the road. It was alleged in the claim petition that while he, riding on his scooter, was crossing the road from south to north at Subhash Marg crossing, a car bearing No. RNH alleged to be driven with excessive speed, coming from Bhagat Singh Marg dashed his scooter from front side while moving from west to east.2. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence and material on record concluded that accident took place on account of negligence of claimant himself and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim any compensation and accordingly dismissed the claim petition.3. The only grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has fa...
Abid Sageer Vs. Surgyan Sharma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC377
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. This is an appeal of the claimant-appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment/award dated 14.6.1996 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputali, District Jaipur.2. According to the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant in the g Tribunal the facts briefly are that on 20.12.1993 the claimant-appellant along with other persons was travelling in his car No. RJ-14-C-9396 from Delhi to Jaipur. The truck No. RRA 7384 being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently hit the car at about 6 a.m. near Manoharpur, as a result of which the claimant-appellant suffered multiple fractures in his right hand and feet and his right eye was completely damaged and he also suffered various other injuries. The truck belonged to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and respondent No. 4 is the Insurance Company. The Tribunal after hearing the parties held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1 and a...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Udai Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: II(2006)ACC191
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Through this appeal under Section 140 (sic Section 173) of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988 the appellants seek to quash the award dated 19.11.92 by which the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000 to the injured claimant.2. The impugned award is assailed only on the ground that the accident was caused by Tonga and not by Ambulance bearing No. RJZ 9825 belonging to the Railway Hospital and, therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay compensation and hence the impugned award is liable to be quashed.3. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. RJZ 9825 by its driver. P.W. 1 Udai Singh himself was examined and he has categorically stated that in the evening of 29.8.83 while he was going on his cycle on left side of the road, the ambulance No. RJZ 9825 tried to overtake from the back side and dashed him as a result of which he fell down a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »